It is a requirement of the brokers PI that they disclose any cancellation - other than for volume reasons. Surely his PI provider will want to know the reason. The broker may be forced out of writing loans unless he can provide a suitable explanation to the PI provider.

Isn't it time some of these aggregators started running their business on their OWN! All lenders have come out stating that the 3rd party channel is very important as we now write around 48% of all their home loans (and growing not like their own channels) yet aggregators keep hiding behind the lenders.

I for one think it's about time aggregators took responsibility for their businesses and the agreements that they sign and if you are for transparency then let your members have a copy of the signed lenders agreements and don't tell me the lenders won't allow it due to privacy make it a condition of the agreement.

If banks can pick who they want to do business why can't we. If particular bank is playing stupid why aggregates does not suspend them for period of time until they investigate them and put them back on panel once they sort the issue. In my financial planning arm once any of the super, fund manager or insurance company for what ever reason are doing something they are suspended for period of time of indefinite. You do this to one bank and if they loose 48% of they business for that mount they will change they approach straight away.

In my opinion aggregates and professional bodies like FBAA and MFAA are just extended arm of banks because banks are giving them a money for run PD days and conferences and from my point of view it is 'conflict of interest'.

The arrogance behind the lender not explaining exactly why the Brokers accreditation was cancelled in a way sums up exactly where the Broker industry is at, and always has been at.

That is : that Brokers have no voice , nor do we have any form of effective leadership pioneering our involvement in this industry.

Between the Aggregators , the FBAA and the MFAA as a collective what exactly do they stand (other than padding their own pockets from our income, in a pimp-like manner) as after 11 years as a Broker I still have absolutely no idea.

Yet we hear from lenders that we are their business partners , well I most certainly don’t treat my business partners in the same manner!

sidbroker -there are always a few sides to every story and only those involved know the real situation.

as for minimum volume requirements - i have seen many brokers proudly display the fact that they are members of a "club" which basically means that they are acting as an agent for that particular lender.

its up to us to help the client decide what is best for them & their families - not what is easiest fir us to process

I always thought the whole point of a broker joining or being a member of an Aggregator was to overcome the so called volume issues. This is corporate thuggery and bullying. Why don't you have a chat to the people at the Small Business Party of Australia. They have an executive whose role is to investigate this type of behaviour and go into bat for their member if this type of thuggery has been established. This type of Corporate bully boy tactics does not just occur in the Finance Broker arena alone which is why this Association as a dedicated Executive to handle and investigate such complaints.

Jason. The reason I gave this lender zero was because the clients did not want their products. There were simply better and more flexible products to choose from. You appear to be jumping to conclusions for some reason. Are you a BDM for an interstate bank perhaps?

I just love how both Lender BDMs & the Aggregator BDMs will tell you to simply lodge the deal under some other Brokers Accreditation where you dont have your own, which in my view is a breach. We are not talking about referring the client, but lodging the deal under another Brokers Accreditation.

It must not be easy for banks. They had 100% market share pre 1996 now brokers introduce 48 ~52% of all loans to them. They have to acknowledge their inability to compete with superior service. Now broker chanel is growing in power because of the amount we originate. From a banks perspective they probably think... why do we bother having branches, staff, expenses and all that BS. They are fighting to protect their legacy which unfortunately, due to a sign of the times and in some cases poor behavior, is changing and they are unable to protect.

Still they are putting away billions of dollars of profit so surely it cant be all that bad?